> 2. Some/all of LA's samples test positive for EPO, and they > exactly mirror the AFLD's previous results. LA's lawyers > challenge the results on 12-year-old urine as being invalid on > the grounds of intentional/ unintentional contamination, loss of > chain of custody, or a dozen other reasons they will dredge up.

On 2/24/2011 9:44 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:> "BLafferty" <b@nowhere.com> wrote in message> news:d6qdnSEYP63O-vvQnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@giganews.com...>> On 2/24/2011 1:44 AM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:>>> "BLafferty" <b@nowhere.com> wrote in message>>> news:GM6dnZezgPSBzvjQnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@giganews.com...>>>> On 2/23/2011 1:00 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:>>>>> "BLafferty"<b@nowhere.com> wrote in message>>>>> news:uaCdnYtuCPPP2vjQnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@giganews.com...>>>>>> On 2/23/2011 11:55 AM, TheCoz wrote:>>>>>>> On Feb 23, 10:12 am, BLafferty<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:>>>>>>>> The process has officially started to obtain Armstrong's 1999 urine>>>>>>>> samples for testing by the Feds here in the US.>>>>>>>> Not a good omen for>>>>>>>> Armstrong.http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrongs-urine-samples-requested-by...>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought the '99 samples were tainted, mishandled and contaminated?>>>>>>> Hasn't thousands of dollars been spent analyzing the '99 samples>>>>>>> allready?>>>>>>> What about the years after '99? I think the 02, 03 and 04 samples>>>>>>> should be put under extensive tests.>>>>>>> Coz>>>>>>>>>>>> Armstrong has alleged that the chain of custody was broken.>>>>>> Apparently not (surprise, surprise) as evidenced by the Letters>>>>>> Rogatory request. Yes, other samples from the postal days from all>>>>>> teammates who rode can be requested--probable have been, too. :-)>>>>>>>>>> Speaking as someone with no background in such things, could you>>>>> explain>>>>> in what way a "Letters Rogatory" guarantees immunity from "chain of>>>>> custody" issues?>>>>>>>> The Letters Rogatory request has nothing to do with proving at trial a>>>> valid chain of custody. My point is that the feds would not start the>>>> Rogatory process if they were not convinced there were not chain of>>>> custody problems on the French side.>>>>>> Can't say that I go along with that conclusion. If I were the prosecutor>>> and thought there might be something interesting, even as background>>> information, I'd go for it regardless of validity in court. What can it>>> hurt? It gets the French thinking you're taking them seriously, so>>> they're going to cooperate. And the downside? None that I can see. It's>>> still good PR if you can slander the defendent without introducing it as>>> evidence isn't it?>>>> That's why you're not a prosecutor. We know they met with French>> officials who have said they found EPO in Armstrong's urine from 1999.>> The feds undoubtedly looked at the chain of custody documentation/logs>> and concluded there were no chain problems. Thus, they decided to>> issue Letters Rogatory to obtain the samples for testing in their own>> facility to confirm the French lab's findings.>>>> The US government does not just issue Letters Rogatory to see what>> might turn up. That is to say, they don't involve foreign>> governments/judicial systems in a criminal matter absent a very good>> reason--more than what you suggest.>> Brian: If Novitsky has half a brain (and there's evidence he's got at> least that), he knows that the French authorities have as little love> for Lance as he does. "Involving" a foreign government would be> most-welcome by the French, and help to provide a framework for further> cooperation down the road.

Most investigators and prosecutors, regardless of nationality, don't like criminals. That doesn't generally result in not guilty verdicts.>> Or so I would think. But, as you said, I'm not a prosecutor.>>> I wonder whether the US Attorney will subpoena Armstrong to testify>> before the grand jury before or after they have the samples and test>> them. Fabio is already rehearsing Armstrong asserting his 5th>> Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.>>>> Can't wait for the AP hacks next article with his inside the Justice>> Dept. "insights.">> --Mike Jacoubowsky> Chain Reaction Bicycles> www.ChainReaction.com> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

== 3 of 3 ==Date: Fri, Feb 25 2011 10:59 am From: Fred Fredburger

On 2/25/2011 6:39 AM, BLafferty wrote:> On 2/24/2011 9:44 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:>> Brian: If Novitsky has half a brain (and there's evidence he's got at>> least that), he knows that the French authorities have as little love>> for Lance as he does. "Involving" a foreign government would be>> most-welcome by the French, and help to provide a framework for further>> cooperation down the road.>> Most investigators and prosecutors, regardless of nationality, don't> like criminals. That doesn't generally result in not guilty verdicts.

You candy-assed that statement so badly it lost all meaning. You're saying that there are no "not guilty" statements, or else that you don't understand the cause of them, or else that the cause for them is a closely held secret that you are not at liberty to reveal, or...

The samples can't be used, in particular, any test on them has noscientific value.

-ilan

== 2 of 15 ==Date: Fri, Feb 25 2011 3:24 am From: Simply Fred

ilan wrote:> The samples can't be used, in particular, any test on them has no> scientific value.

Tell that to Lafferty.

== 3 of 15 ==Date: Fri, Feb 25 2011 6:38 am From: BLafferty

On 2/25/2011 5:41 AM, ilan wrote:> On Feb 23, 11:32 pm, "hargo...@yahoo.com"<hargo...@yahoo.com> wrote:>> Armstrong's urine samples requested by US authorities>> (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrongs-urine-samples-requested-by->> us-authorities )>>>> My guess is that this evidence will fail the chain of evidence>> requirement if Lance goes to court. This could increase the possiblity>> that Lance could be indicted since the defense probably cannot object>> in a grand jury investigation.>> The samples can't be used, in particular, any test on them has no> scientific value.>> -ilanIf the chain of custody is intact and there is enough to test, the Justice Department can test them and introduce the results in court with a proper evidential foundation--complete chain of custody and testimony as to testing procedure, all of which is open to challenge by the defense.

== 4 of 15 ==Date: Fri, Feb 25 2011 10:58 am From: ilan

On Feb 25, 3:38 pm, BLafferty <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:> On 2/25/2011 5:41 AM, ilan wrote:> On Feb 23, 11:32 pm, "hargo...@yahoo.com"<hargo...@yahoo.com> wrote:> >> Armstrong's urine samples requested by US authorities> >> (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrongs-urine-samples-requested-by-> >> us-authorities )>> >> My guess is that this evidence will fail the chain of evidence> >> requirement if Lance goes to court. This could increase the possiblity> >> that Lance could be indicted since the defense probably cannot object> >> in a grand jury investigation.>> > The samples can't be used, in particular, any test on them has no> > scientific value.>> > -ilan>> If the chain of custody is intact and there is enough to test, the> Justice Department can test them and introduce the results in court with> a proper evidential foundation--complete chain of custody and testimony> as to testing procedure, all of which is open to challenge by the defense.

It's the A sample. It doesn't matter if its positive, since the Bsample was destroyed. Of course, that leaves open the possibility thatin the US justice system, scientific evidence doesn't have to be heldup to scientific standards..

-ilan

== 5 of 15 ==Date: Fri, Feb 25 2011 11:32 am From: "A. Dumas"

ilan wrote:> It's the A sample. It doesn't matter if its positive, since the B> sample was destroyed. Of course, that leaves open the possibility that> in the US justice system, scientific evidence doesn't have to be held> up to scientific standards..

Single samples may be split into A and B samples, right? In fact, that is how it is done when the rider pees into the cup. He doesn't come back the next day for a second donation.

== 6 of 15 ==Date: Fri, Feb 25 2011 11:53 am From: Phil H

On Feb 25, 12:32 pm, "A. Dumas" <alexan...@dumas.fr.invalid> wrote:> ilan wrote:> > It's the A sample. It doesn't matter if its positive, since the B> > sample was destroyed. Of course, that leaves open the possibility that> > in the US justice system, scientific evidence doesn't have to be held> > up to scientific standards..>> Single samples may be split into A and B samples, right? In fact, that> is how it is done when the rider pees into the cup. He doesn't come back> the next day for a second donation.

No, the whole point of A and B samples is to minimize the possibilityof a false positive due to an anomoly occurring to the A sample thatwould likely not occur to the B sample. If such a thing happened tothe A sample, example a contamination, then splitting the A sample isworthless. The check has gone and the outcome of the test on the Asample will not meet the required confidence level for statisticalsignificance on its own.....in my opinion.Phil H

== 7 of 15 ==Date: Fri, Feb 25 2011 12:19 pm From: "A. Dumas"

Phil H wrote:> On Feb 25, 12:32 pm, "A. Dumas" <alexan...@dumas.fr.invalid> wrote:>> ilan wrote:>>> It's the A sample. It doesn't matter if its positive, since the B>>> sample was destroyed. Of course, that leaves open the possibility that>>> in the US justice system, scientific evidence doesn't have to be held>>> up to scientific standards..>> Single samples may be split into A and B samples, right? In fact, that>> is how it is done when the rider pees into the cup. He doesn't come back>> the next day for a second donation.> > No [...]

Then how? Rider pees into cup, half of it goes into another cup, both are sealed, that's it. It's a single split sample from the outset. When splitting it later doesn't change a thing (for the population).

== 8 of 15 ==Date: Fri, Feb 25 2011 12:20 pm From: "A. Dumas"

A. Dumas wrote:> When splitting it later doesn't change a thing (for the population).

-when-

== 9 of 15 ==Date: Fri, Feb 25 2011 1:49 pm From: "Fred on a stick"

A. Dumas wrote:> Phil H wrote:>> On Feb 25, 12:32 pm, "A. Dumas" <alexan...@dumas.fr.invalid> wrote:>>> ilan wrote:>>>> It's the A sample. It doesn't matter if its positive, since the B>>>> sample was destroyed. Of course, that leaves open the possibility>>>> that in the US justice system, scientific evidence doesn't have to>>>> be held up to scientific standards..>>> Single samples may be split into A and B samples, right? In fact,>>> that is how it is done when the rider pees into the cup. He doesn't>>> come back the next day for a second donation.>>>> No [...]>> Then how? Rider pees into cup, half of it goes into another cup, both> are sealed, that's it. It's a single split sample from the outset.> When splitting it later doesn't change a thing (for the population).

I don't have any experience with drug testing so I have no idea how relevant this is but last year I participated in a research project where I had to give both blood and urine samples. They needed two samples of urine and three of blood. I pee'd into one cup, then I pee'd into another. They didn't split the sample. Same with the blood: they didn't take one draw and then split it.

On Feb 25, 1:19 pm, "A. Dumas" <alexan...@dumas.fr.invalid> wrote:> Phil H wrote:> > On Feb 25, 12:32 pm, "A. Dumas" <alexan...@dumas.fr.invalid> wrote:> >> ilan wrote:> >>> It's the A sample. It doesn't matter if its positive, since the B> >>> sample was destroyed. Of course, that leaves open the possibility that> >>> in the US justice system, scientific evidence doesn't have to be held> >>> up to scientific standards..> >> Single samples may be split into A and B samples, right? In fact, that> >> is how it is done when the rider pees into the cup. He doesn't come back> >> the next day for a second donation.>> > No [...]>> Then how? Rider pees into cup, half of it goes into another cup, both> are sealed, that's it. It's a single split sample from the outset. When> splitting it later doesn't change a thing (for the population).

Dumas,

Averaged over the population, it doesn't changeanything. But we don't have dope charges andcriminal trials for entire populations. Not yet anyway.In an individual case it might change something,and that's what individuals tend to care about.

The difference between peeing into two cups andsplitting one vial into A and B after the fact iscontrolling for whatever unknown things might havehappened to one vial and its sample between thedope control trailer and the courtroom.

Remember when the doping-war official suggestedsplitting the sample to make a "new B sample" andLafferty posted a thread of similar title here? Eventhe professional dope cops didn't take that ideaseriously.

However, I don't know if US criminal law and practicesays a damn thing about A and B samples. That's adoping-authority rule. Remember, this is a fraud trial,not a doping trial, so it's irrelevant. They need to geta jury to believe that the B sample test proves fraud,not that it secures a doping conviction, so doping-offenserules are at best advisory.

Fredmaster B

== 11 of 15 ==Date: Fri, Feb 25 2011 3:14 pm From: BLafferty

On 2/25/2011 2:32 PM, A. Dumas wrote:> ilan wrote:>> It's the A sample. It doesn't matter if its positive, since the B>> sample was destroyed. Of course, that leaves open the possibility that>> in the US justice system, scientific evidence doesn't have to be held>> up to scientific standards..>> Single samples may be split into A and B samples, right? In fact, that> is how it is done when the rider pees into the cup. He doesn't come back> the next day for a second donation.In criminal law, you do not need the B sample. What is left over from the prior French testing may be used for analysis if the chain of custody is still intact (apparently it is) and there is enough to test. The AUSA may offer to allow Armstrong's counsel to have an expert observe the testing, or if there is enough urine, they may allow a defense expert to test that portion with a government expert observer.

> What is left over from> the prior French testing may be used for analysis if the chain of> custody is still intact (apparently it is)

Chain of custody is only one of many requirements for any testing onthese samples to have validity. There also has to be proof that thesamples were never intentionally or unintentionally contaminated, thatthe samples were maintained in a controlled condition for the past 11years (e.g. temperature), etc. Should the samples show EPO present,I'm pretty sure LA's laywers would ( as they have in the past withthese samples ) be able to produce all manner of explanations as towhy the results have no significance.

== 13 of 15 ==Date: Fri, Feb 25 2011 6:51 pm From: BLafferty

On 2/25/2011 6:40 PM, Brad Anders wrote:> On Feb 25, 4:14 pm, BLafferty<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:>>> What is left over from>> the prior French testing may be used for analysis if the chain of>> custody is still intact (apparently it is)>> Chain of custody is only one of many requirements for any testing on> these samples to have validity. There also has to be proof that the> samples were never intentionally or unintentionally contaminated, that> the samples were maintained in a controlled condition for the past 11> years (e.g. temperature), etc.

That is all part of the chain of custody.

> Should the samples show EPO present,> I'm pretty sure LA's laywers would ( as they have in the past with> these samples ) be able to produce all manner of explanations as to> why the results have no significance.

They would blow a lot of smoke, but in court that smoke gets cleared very quickly. This isn't some UCI hack letting Lance off the hook.

== 14 of 15 ==Date: Fri, Feb 25 2011 7:59 pm From: Phil H

On Feb 25, 1:19 pm, "A. Dumas" <alexan...@dumas.fr.invalid> wrote:> Phil H wrote:> > On Feb 25, 12:32 pm, "A. Dumas" <alexan...@dumas.fr.invalid> wrote:> >> ilan wrote:> >>> It's the A sample. It doesn't matter if its positive, since the B> >>> sample was destroyed. Of course, that leaves open the possibility that> >>> in the US justice system, scientific evidence doesn't have to be held> >>> up to scientific standards..> >> Single samples may be split into A and B samples, right? In fact, that> >> is how it is done when the rider pees into the cup. He doesn't come back> >> the next day for a second donation.>> > No [...]>> Then how? Rider pees into cup, half of it goes into another cup, both> are sealed, that's it. It's a single split sample from the outset. When> splitting it later doesn't change a thing (for the population).

Several things can compromise the test. The A sample gets mixed uplater with someone elses, wrong ID number or whatever, did you readthe report on FL's test sample? I also assume these A samples werealready tested introducing more opportunity for reducing reliability.Anyway, the B sample is a safeguard for screwups like these so if itthe A sample does get mixed up or messed up and is later split intotwo, well, you get the picture. The samples need to be split at thetime they are collected; done at a much later time reduces theitegrity ot the test. Otherwise, why bother?Phil H

== 15 of 15 ==Date: Fri, Feb 25 2011 8:14 pm From: Phil H

On Feb 25, 7:51 pm, BLafferty <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:> On 2/25/2011 6:40 PM, Brad Anders wrote:>> > On Feb 25, 4:14 pm, BLafferty<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:>> >> What is left over from> >> the prior French testing may be used for analysis if the chain of> >> custody is still intact (apparently it is)>> > Chain of custody is only one of many requirements for any testing on> > these samples to have validity. There also has to be proof that the> > samples were never intentionally or unintentionally contaminated, that> > the samples were maintained in a controlled condition for the past 11> > years (e.g. temperature), etc.>> That is all part of the chain of custody.>> > Should the samples show EPO present,> > I'm pretty sure LA's laywers would ( as they have in the past with> > these samples ) be able to produce all manner of explanations as to> > why the results have no significance.>> They would blow a lot of smoke, but in court that smoke gets cleared> very quickly. This isn't some UCI hack letting Lance off the hook.

No, its some bullshit lawyer with a preconceived notion more intent on"winning" than truth seeking. For every expert witness that testifiesto the validity of the test you'll find 10 that'll say it's BS andthey'll say it's BS before the result is known and whatever theoutcome. Given the apparent motivation of people like yourself whohave been able to identify samples and whatever else, well, the wholething doth stink m'lud.Phil H

On Feb 25, 2:58 am, Dumbass <tadams...@yahoo.com> wrote:> I was looking at a tour package for the Tour de France in Paris. I> was wondering if I could do all the good stuff that the tour package> offered on my own.>> 1. Can you just rent a bike and ride around the Champs Elysee in the> morning before the racers arrive? Or do you have to make special> arrangements?>> 2. Can you purchase tickets for seats with a good view? How do you> get a good view?>> Thanks

I rode around the Champs-Elysee on a rental bike a couple of monthsago, but I'd rather ride almost anywhere else, given a choice.

-ilan

== 2 of 3 ==Date: Fri, Feb 25 2011 5:54 am From: "Mike Jacoubowsky"

"Dumbass" <tadamsmar@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:a6d1ea76-7eb0-4fa8-b39d-2e42ff16acf0@u12g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...>I was looking at a tour package for the Tour de France in Paris. I> was wondering if I could do all the good stuff that the tour package> offered on my own.>> 1. Can you just rent a bike and ride around the Champs Elysee in the> morning before the racers arrive? Or do you have to make special> arrangements?>> 2. Can you purchase tickets for seats with a good view? How do you> get a good view?>> Thanks

There are special packages that allow you to sit in the grandstands, but at a cost of about $350/person. You can rent a bike in Paris, but you probably won't be able to ride on the Champs Elysees except at a ridiculously-early hour, since it will be closed to traffic (and besides, it's not that much fun).

The final day of the TdF is probably best viewed on TV. It's an insane madhouse, to say the least. Much better would be to see it a few days earlier in the Alps, or the day before on the final time trial around Grenoble.

As for doing things on your own vs a tour company, if this is your first time to France, I'd go for the tour company.

Good athlete does not equal good person. Indeed, world-class athlete at one sport isn't a reliable predictor of similar performance at another, similar sport, let alone a dissimilar sport, let alone any career not sports-related, let alone matters of character. To expect our athletes to also be heroes is to invite disappointment, and for no good reason. If we want our athletes to act like model citizens, put that into their contracts. In the meantime, we should stop oogling their off-the-field antics and each worry about our own character - that would be time well spent.

They say power corrupts, but it seems to me that fame corrupts more.

Lance Armstrong is an athlete I look up to, and expect to continue to look up to, both for his athletic performance and for his off-field achievements in the realm of cancer support.

This email is to notify you that your email address was
randomly selected and entered into our free Third Category
draws.You have subsequently emerged a winner and therefore
entitled to a substantial amount of 1,000,000.00 Great British
Pounds.kindly confirm receipt of this email, by forwarding
Your Details to the claims department by (click reply to).

Welcome to the latest edition of the RegNow Affiliate Quarterly Email Newsletter. We are committed to keeping you updated on the latest affiliate news from RegNow including: what’s new, featured products and categories, tips, helpful information and new products available in the RegNow Affiliate Network.

Featured Products

Highlighting a few of the many certified products available in the RegNow Affiliate Network

RamkaSoundTaxi Professional40% Commission

Ramka SoundTaxi Professional lets you take your music with you everywhere.

·

An ultimately fast audio converter for your music files.

·

Using a batch mode you can convert your audio library to MP3, M4A, WMA or WAV format up to 50 times faster than the original playback speed.

In January, several teams from Digital River, including RegNow, attended the Affiliate Summit West in Las Vegas, Nevada. This year’s event was the biggest Affiliate Summit to date, with over 4,600 people attending the three day conference which focuses on the latest affiliate marketing trends, as well as an exhibition hall and networking events.

As the premier affiliate marketing conference, Affiliate Summit West highlighted trends such as video, social media, mobile marketing and blogs. Digital River teams also exhibited at the conference, and this year, the teams invited renowned quarterback Warren Moon to their booth. Warren signed autographs and handed out NFL footballs to booth visitors. After the show, Digital River held a private party for affiliates, where they received a private viewing of the NCAA Championship game with Warren Moon.

We are looking forward to Affiliate Summit East which will be held in August 21-23 in New York City. Look for more information as the show approaches.

New Products

A few of the new certified products available in the RegNow Affiliate Network

4MediaiPad Max50% Commission

iPad Max is an ideal iPad transfer, manager, and converter.

·

Supports all iPad models as well as other Apple portable devices such as iPod and iPhone.

Mac software is growing rapidly and the RegNow Affiliate Network has a wide variety of the hottest Mac products. Using the Product Finder to search by Mac platform makes it quick and easy to find great Mac tools.

Online coupon usage is growing rapidly. You can take part in this growth by using the RegNow Affiliate Coupon Feed to find all of the great product coupons available from our vendors!

What’s New on RegNow:

·

New Shopping Cart – As we messaged earlier in 2011, our new cart is available for your use. For more information, see the New Order URL Help & Support page.

·

iDeal and Giropay– Several benefits of using the new shopping cart include the addition of 2 new payment methods, iDeal and Giropay. These new payment types are great options for your Dutch and German customers.

·

Version IDs are now included in the product datafeed, so you get the most current & up-to-date version information.